FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

And the Secret Word Is …

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

If we are to regard ourselves as a grown-up nation-and anything else will henceforth be mortally dangerous-then we must, as the Biblical phrase goes, put away childish things; and among these . . . the first to go, in my opinion, should be . . .the search for absolute security. . . .

–George Kennan, The Sources of Soviet Conduct, in Foreign Affairs (1947.)

Now we know what they so badly wanted to tell us but couldn’t and what a revelation it is.  I refer to the exciting and long awaited news reported in the Wall Street Journal as to what it was that Senators Mark Udall and Tom Wyden have been dying to tell the American public about the operations of the N.S.A.  but were unable to disclose because the information was of such a top-secret nature that they were not authorized to disclose it.

According to the WSJ,  the secret information that the senators had that was so confidential they could only hint at it was an interpretation of one word in the Patriot Act by the FISA Court. The super super secret word was “relevant.”  To the non-lawyer this may seem like a secret that was hardly worth keeping and, indeed, it may even seem so to the legal mind.  To understand the true import of this revelation a bit of history is important.  The word “relevant” has become important because of two other words, “special needs.”

In legal parlance “special needs” has referred to two different things.  In one context it refers to individuals who because of health and related issues are described as having “special needs.”  In another context, and the one that concerns us today, it refers to situations that because of their great importance are used to justify the government obtaining court  orders permitting it to conduct searches without first obtaining a warrant as would normally be required by the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

“Special needs” finds its genesis in a 1989 case in which a court ruled that an individual’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search was not violated when random drug tests were conducted on railway workers.  The court reasoned that running a railroad was a sufficiently dangerous operation that it was reasonable for the government to conduct random drug tests of employees without first obtaining a court order permitting the tests.   Following this line of reasoning, the FISA court greatly expanded the use of “special needs” to include warrantless collection of vast amounts of communication information that it claims pertain to “special needs” i.e. “terrorist activities.”  Once the court adopted the broad interpretation of “special needs,” the  jump to “relevant” was an easy one.  Relevant, too, comes with a bit of history, however.

Until the FISA Court adopted a broader meaning  for “relevant” something was considered “relevant” in criminal law if it was information pertinent to a particular investigation.  If, for example, a prosecutor sought an order asking a judge to permit the prosecutor to tap the phone of Whitey Bulger so it could see if he was ordering people to be killed, a court would almost certainly have considered that “relevant” to the inquiry and permitted the tap without requiring that Whitey be given notice of the tap.  If, however, the prosecutor asked the court for permission to obtain the phone records of all the residents of the  community in which the prosecutor thought Whitey lived, the court would have laughed the prosecutor out of the court while denying the request. . The FISA court, as we now know, lacks a sense of humor.  Not only does it lack a sense of humor, it has quite a different idea of what is meant by the word “relevant” when used in the context of its activities.  It believes that because of the special needs attendant upon terrorist investigations an order permitting the aggregation of records on millions of people would be relevant to an investigation.  Put another way, it would seem that anything the government wants, the FISA court thinks the government should get.

The FISA judges do not take kindly to the suggestion that the court is simply a rubber stamp for the government’s request for secret orders. That became obvious when  Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst described the FISA Court as a “kangaroo court with a rubber stamp.” Reggie Walton, the Court’s presiding judge took umbrage at the comment saying:  “The perception that the court is a rubber stamp is absolutely false” he told the Guardian newspaper. He said “There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch. . . .”  Judge Walton’s assertion of rigorous review was borne out by statistics.

According to a report in the Guardian, in 2012 the court received 1,856 requests for surveillance which was a 5% increase over the number of requests received in 2011.  Although there was a slight increase in the number of requests received, there was one number that neither increased nor decreased during those two years.  The unchanged number was zero-the number of requests for surveillance that the FISA court, applying the rigorous scrutiny described by Judge Walton, turned down.  Zero does not help us understand the meaning of “rigorous review.”  The requests for surveillance that were approved, however, help us understand the meaning of “special needs” and “relevant.”

Christopher Brauchli is a lawyer living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

 

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail